Created byFuzzy Cloud

Supreme Court of India

SHRI JAI KISHANversusSHRI KESHA V RAM AND ORS.

Citation
1996 INSC 1478
Decided
13 December 1996
Disposal
Dismissed

Holding

The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition, holding that the High Court’s findings were not vitiated by any illegality and were substantiated by the Local Commissioner’s report.

Summary

The petitioner sought special leave to challenge a Himachal Pradesh High Court order that appointed a Local Commissioner (Tehsildar) to re‑measure a disputed land parcel and relied on the Commissioner’s report indicating encroachment by the respondent. The High Court, after examining the report, upheld the appellate court’s findings, concluding that there was no illegality in the measurement process and that the respondent could not substantiate his claim of an existing building. The Supreme Court examined whether any procedural or substantive illegality warranted interference under Article 136. Finding that the High Court’s decision was fully supported by the Commissioner’s report and that no illegality was evident, the Court declined to entertain the petition. Consequently, the special leave petition was dismissed, leaving the High Court’s order intact.

Issues considered

  • Whether the Supreme Court should interfere with the High Court’s findings on the basis of the Local Commissioner’s report under Article 136 of the Constitution.
  • Whether the appointment of a Local Commissioner and reliance on its report constitute any illegality that justifies granting special leave.

Legislation cited

Subjects

Special Leave PetitionArticle 136Land encroachmentMeasurement disputeLocal Commissioner reportHigh Court findingsCivil appellate jurisdiction

Judgment

A                               SHRI JAi KISHAN
                                          v.
                       SHRI KESHAV RAM AND ORS.
                                                                                     t
                              DECEMBER 13, 1996                                      '

B               [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.)

          Constitution of India, 1950 : Article 136.

        Finding offact-lnteiference with by Supreme Court-On the facts of
C case High Court found that the view taken by Appellate Court was not vitiated
  by any illegality-Finding substantiated by Report of Local Commis-
  sioner--Held in such circumstances it was not necessary for the Supreme
  Court to go into the matter.

          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (C)
D No. 23678 of 1996.
         From the Judgment and Order dat(:d 8.7.96 of the Himachal Pradesh
    High Court in R.S.A. No. 448 of 1990.

          Mahendra Singh and Devendra Singh, for the Petitioner.
E
          The following Order of the Court was delivered :

         It is stated in the judgment of the learned single Judge of the High
    Court at pages 4 and 5 thus :

F            "When the matter w~s argued before me, I was of the opinion that
             the measurements had not been taken by the Tehsildar and the
             Revenue Patwari in accordance with the well set rules of proce-
             dure in this behalf. Consequently, with the consent of the parties,
             I passed an order appointing another Local Commissioner i.e.
             Tehsildar Kasauli and issued certain directions to him to go to the
G            spot and measure the site in dispute and to submit a report in
             detail. This order was passed on 20th May, 1996 and this judgment
             be read in continuation of that order, it may also be noticed at this
             stage that the parties before me had undertaken that they will abide
             by the report to be submitted by the Local Commissioner and no
H            objections would be filed before this Court against that. The report
                                          100
                      JAIKISHAN v. KESHAVRAM                             101
        of the Local Commissioner has bee\received by this Court in A
        sealed cover which was ordered to be bpened in the presence of
        the learned counsel appearing for the parties. This report is hereby
        marked as Ex. C-1 and it shall form part of the record."

      On perusal of the report, the High Court has stated thus :
                                                                                B
        "It is also there in the report that the appellant- defendant was
        unable to substantiate his claim that there was old existing building
        on the disputed site which he alleges to have purchased through
        the registered sale deed. On measurements, it has been found that
        the defendant has encroached upon an area belonging to the              C
        plaintiff to the extent of 0-4 Biswas. The report is further accom-
        panied by the plan which was prepared by the Local Commissioner
        and the encroachments stands indicated therein. The statements
        of the parties were also recorded by the Local Commissioner and
        are attached to the report along with the field book."
                                                                                D
       On the basis of the above factual matrix, the High Court has found
that the view taken by the appellate Court was not vitiated by any illegality
since that finding was substantiated by the report, Ex. C-1 given by the
Commissioner appointed by the High Court. This being the factual posi-
tion, we do not propose to go into the matter.
                                                                                E
      The special leave petition is dismissed.

T.NA.                                                    Petition dismissed.


Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "Special Leave Petition"Sign in to search

For a digitally signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's own website. Only the court can issue one.